Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
StingrayOZ said:
You have to hand it to the germans, they know what to say and do. Buying ASC is a pretty big carrot. Export to Canada and other countries. They will be winning local voters over with plans to expand techport and white elephanting the Japanese proposal.

* Ian McPhedran travelled to Germany as a guest of TKMS.

Also love the submarine comparison table. Soryu doesnt have aip? I suspect many things are suspect or odd on that table. Too bad it doesn't include engines, underwater endurance etc.
Click to expand...
Wow. A number of terms I am not familiar with.

For example, what is:
Propultion Motor?
Tope speed?

The one I do not think is a spelling mistake is the term US C2 and Armament Potential, which for the Collins-class SSG was marked as n/a, which I suspect is not the real case.

One of my other takeways from the chart is that it projects the impression that the Type 216 submarine is a 'real' sub, vs. a hypothetical design. The Li-Ion battery mention for instance, has a conventional Barracuda-class listed with "(under development)" while the Type 216 gets a "Yes" given that the Type 216 design is technically Under Development, the Li-Ion status seems a bit premature.
 
4

40 deg south

Well-Known Member
John Newman said:
And as soon as the new DWP is announced in a few months, then we should all have some clear answers to the direction that Australian Naval shipbuilding is heading and how it will get there.
Click to expand...
John (or others)

What is the time line for the Australian Defence White Paper? Do you have a release date, or even a rough estimate?

The reason I ask is because NZ is also working on a DWP, and a lot of public consultations material has been released in the last few weeks on the NZ MoD website. See
Defence White Paper 2015 [Ministry of Defence NZ]
and elsewhere on the site.

I'm curious to know whether the Australian government followed a similar process?
We have a statement that a draft of the DWP will go to the Minister before the end of December, but no indication on a public release date.

Cheers
 
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
40 deg south said:
John (or others)

What is the time line for the Australian Defence White Paper? Do you have a release date, or even a rough estimate?

The reason I ask is because NZ is also working on a DWP, and a lot of public consultations material has been released in the last few weeks on the NZ MoD website. See
Defence White Paper 2015 [Ministry of Defence NZ]
and elsewhere on the site.

I'm curious to know whether the Australian government followed a similar process?
We have a statement that a draft of the DWP will go to the Minister before the end of December, but no indication on a public release date.

Cheers
Click to expand...
G'day Mate,

The Government originally said they were going to produce the new DWP 'within 18 months' of coming to Government, which meant it was supposed to be about now, but the last I've read is suggesting around September (give or take a bit). I haven't seen any official reason why it was delayed (maybe change of Def Min last December? Maybe other reasons, just don't know).

Here's a link to the Oz Defence website, specifically the process for the DWP:

Home : Whitepaper : Department of Defence

Yes I have seen the comments in the NZ threads about the upcoming NZ DWP, I assume it is probably a similar process, anyway, have a look through the Oz DWP process and you can probably compare between the two!

Cheers,
 
A

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
oldsig127 said:
Further to my recommendation. Be prepared to be deeply astonished by the range and nature of the public submissions, but I fear that most won't be all that enlightening. Or coherent.

oldsig
Click to expand...
Some of them are 'special' to say the least.

One numpty (R. Jennings - an Eric Palmer blog fan I suspect) wants Army to buy 2000 Bushmasters, create a 4th multi-role combat brigade, buy 900 CV-90's, 1300 Hawkeis and 500x 120mm mortars bolted to 'trucks' to 'fix' Army's 'lack of firepower'. All this is going to be paid for, by not replacing the ASLAV's, though their 25mm guns can be used on the 2000 new Bushmasters, apparently...

Won't even go into his naval / airforce 'plans'...

He also wants a bex and a LONG lie down, I hope...
 
R

rockitten

Member
StingrayOZ said:
You have to hand it to the germans, they know what to say and do. Buying ASC is a pretty big carrot. Export to Canada and other countries. They will be winning local voters over with plans to expand techport and white elephanting the Japanese proposal.

* Ian McPhedran travelled to Germany as a guest of TKMS.

Also love the submarine comparison table. Soryu doesnt have aip? I suspect many things are suspect or odd on that table. Too bad it doesn't include engines, underwater endurance etc.
Click to expand...
Agree. Even though, I wonder what why other bidder for Sea5000 can't take over ASC (or the yard other than ASC) or what if Canadian want to have their sub build local. But yeah, that's quite attractive.

For Soryu, the new built "MKII" will have the AIP removed and also switch to Li batteries. That's the configuration our sub will be based on.
 
H

hairyman

Active Member
After perusual of most of the White Paper submissions, it is apparent that :-

1. A lot of the submitters feel the Virginia Class is the ideal submarine for the RAN and are amazed it is not being considered.
2. A lot of dissatisfaction with the US Alliance, and the way Australia appears to be manipulated. They cant see any reason for the US troops to be present in Northern Australia.
3. Several are calling for a self propelled artillery weapon to be purchased.
4....The wisdom of having the RAAF so reliant on the F35.

All in all it was a fascinating read.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
swerve said:
The replacements for the Adelaide (Perry) class are already building - the Hobart class.
Click to expand...
Well technically the Hobarts are the permanent replacement for the Perth Class DDGs, the FFGUP (upgraded Adelaide class FFGs) were the interim replacement for that capability.

Splitting hairs I know but it is technically the FFGs that are being retired without replacement as a result of successive governments stepping back from the, never actually realised, plan to increase surface combatant numbers in lieu of replacing the carrier Melbourne. A lot of water under the bridge since then, fall of the Berlin Wall, peace dividend, the war on terror and everything in between and after.

Had the RAN increased major combatant numbers they would have been the only ones as everyone else was cutting them. I suppose what happened is the peace dividend became the planned ships that weren't actually ordered, the corvettes, timely DDG replacements (proposed licenced DDG 51 build or FMS purchased), stretched ANZACs, etc. What the RAN was left with was upgraded FFGs (four instead of six and greatly delayed), ANZACs (aborted ANZACWIP then the excellent ASMD) and an atrophied shipbuilding industry that has, to-date, cost 3 billion to rebuild.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
StingrayOZ said:
You have to hand it to the germans, they know what to say and do. Buying ASC is a pretty big carrot. Export to Canada and other countries. They will be winning local voters over with plans to expand techport and white elephanting the Japanese proposal.

* Ian McPhedran travelled to Germany as a guest of TKMS.

Also love the submarine comparison table. Soryu doesnt have aip? I suspect many things are suspect or odd on that table. Too bad it doesn't include engines, underwater endurance etc.
Click to expand...
Remember his SAAB sponsored trip to Sweden? Gripens for the RAAF and SAAB submarines.

I would love TKMS or similar to buy ASC and successfully initiate a rolling build but fear it wont happen. As I see it there's more chance of all ships and subs being built off shore and maintained in WA than TKMS, DCNS, or (my preferred option) GD Marine Systems (EB / BIW / NASSCO) buying ASC. Just how would a future government explain problems without a gagged government owned business to blame? They may need to accept some of the responsibility themselves.
 
P

pgclift

Member
A question if I may.

In the discussion of the DWP and options for suitable replacement ships and subs, does anyone know what the thinking is regarding navy's operating structure might be?

Is it intended the RAN should be resourced so they are capable of operating as a self supporting balanced fleet. Or is it envisaged the classes of ships would have special standalone roles and perhaps operate in conjunction with other allied navies?

Thanks
Phillip
 
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
rockitten said:
Agree. Even though, I wonder what why other bidder for Sea5000 can't take over ASC (or the yard other than ASC) or what if Canadian want to have their sub build local. But yeah, that's quite attractive.
Click to expand...
There is distinction between what facilities ASC has at Techport and what is the 'common user facility' and Techport itself. I've put this link up before, but it's worth putting up again:

Australia’s premier naval industry hub supporting The Australian Navy AWDs

What this basically shows is that ASC is 'tenant' (for a better word) on the Techport site which is owned by the South Australian Government, currently there are other tenants on the site too, Raytheon for example.

As I understand it, when there is talk of ASC being 'sold off', it is the 'ASC' business and most probably it's individual facilities too and not the site as a whole.

As the 'flyover' video shows (depending on who wins the various submarine, frigate and potentially other shipbuilding projects), there can be a whole range of combinations as to who eventually ends up occupying their part of the SA Government owned Techport site and at the same time sharing the common user facility.

Cheers,
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Volkodav said:
Well technically the Hobarts are the permanent replacement for the Perth Class DDGs, the FFGUP (upgraded Adelaide class FFGs) were the interim replacement for that capability.

Splitting hairs I know but it is technically the FFGs that are being retired without replacement as a result of successive governments stepping back from the, never actually realised, plan to increase surface combatant numbers in lieu of replacing the carrier Melbourne. A lot of water under the bridge since then, fall of the Berlin Wall, peace dividend, the war on terror and everything in between and after.
Click to expand...
I see the reasoning, but I think the 15 years between the decommissioning of the Perth class & the commissioning of HMAS Hobart renders the idea that the AWDs are replacements for the Perths meaningless. In the past, generations of ships have come & gone in that timescale. To me, it looks like a political fiction: "We didn't replace 'em with similar ships, so we'll call this new class their replacements".

In reality, as you say, the capability that was lost was replaced by FFGUP. That capability will be replaced by AWD.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
They thought they could do without the capability but Timor proved otherwise when a USN Ticonderoga was required for over watch to permit the operation to be undertaken at all.

There was a project to investigate the possibility of upgrading the ANZACs with AEGIS and SPY-1F which, as you could imagine, was unworkable, but the almost immediate decision, outlined in the Howard Govt DWP, post Timor, demonstrates the realisation of the need to replace the capability lost with the retirement of the DDGs.

2002 saw the kick off of the AWD project and for the life of me I will never understand why it took so long to choose a design and start building it. No one in the media seems to have drawn the conclusion but it is becoming pretty clear that a license built Flight IIA Burke, ordered in the early 2000s could have been constructed in Williamstown, following seamlessly from the ANZACs, costing less than the eventual AWDprogram and in service before the FFGUP reached FOC.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Could also probably have got a licence-built F124 in the same timescale, with the same missiles & a fine sensor suite.
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Timor is most likely why the navy asked for 96 cells. If you asked the USN or USMC what they would need to conduct a Timor type operation what would you get? At least 1 cruiser, 3 destroyers, 1 LHD, 1 LPD and probably a CVN, minimum with half a dozen SSN.

Another article from our friend at TKMS..

ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems capability for Australia’s Future Submarines project

Which does read a bit like an advertising brocure. But does point out some of the strengths of the TKMS proposal. Openness, proven track record, repeat customers, John White is head of TKMS Aust so it looks like they have put together a whos who in submarine construction for the team that will look after the project. A plan for tech port, a plan for ASC. Its a serious bid and they are applying pressure to where the J option seems weakest.

Also with the 216, will it have four diesel engines?
 
T

TomcatTerry

New Member
Future subs obsolete

There seems to be a growing ground swell around the world in many different forums re robot / drone submarines from mothership submarines that will make all but other stealth drone submarines obsolete.
I'm assuming our Australian defence planners with advice hopefully from the very knowledgeable Mr White from TKMS, will ensure a possible mix of example eight 216 subs, and to keep the Australian vessel builders busy in SA, a continuous build program for hundreds, if not thousands of drone submarines to supplement the new subs and potentially the future frigate blue water force.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top